American Dictatorship.... Ron Paul'

TRANSCRIPT:
__________________________________________________ __________________

The last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes. The process is propelled by unwarranted fear and ignorance as to the true meaning of liberty. It is driven by economic myths, fallacies and irrational good intentions. The rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems.

Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. Who would have ever thought that the current generation and Congress would stand idly by and watch such a rapid disintegration of the American Republic? Characteristic of this epic event is the casual acceptance by the people and political leaders of the unitary presidency, which is equivalent to granting dictatorial powers to the President. Our Presidents can now, on their own:

1. Order assassinations, including American citizens,
2. Operate secret military tribunals,
3. Engage in torture,
4. Enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process,
5. Order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment,
6. Ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution,
7. Continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight,
8. Wage war at will,
9. Treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-raying.

And the Federal Reserve accommodates by counterfeiting the funds needed and not paid for by taxation and borrowing, permitting runaway spending, endless debt, and special interest bail-outs.

And all of this is not enough. The abuses and usurpations of the war power are soon to be codified in the National Defense Authorization Act now rapidly moving its way through the Congress. Instead of repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), as we should, now that bin Laden is dead and gone, Congress is planning to massively increase the war power of the President. Though an opportunity presents itself to end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Congress, with bipartisan support, obsesses on how to expand the unconstitutional war power the President already holds.

The current proposal would allow a President to pursue war any time, any place, for any reason, without Congressional approval. Many believe this would even permit military activity against American suspects here at home. The proposed authority does not reference the 9/11 attacks. It would be expanded to include the Taliban and "associated" forces—a dangerously vague and expansive definition of our potential enemies.

There is no denial that the changes in s.1034 totally eliminate the hard-fought-for restraint on Presidential authority to go to war without Congressional approval achieved at the Constitutional Convention. Congress' war authority has been severely undermined since World War II beginning with the advent of the Korean War which was fought solely under a UN Resolution. Even today, we're waging war in Libya without even consulting with the Congress, similar to how we went to war in Bosnia in the 1990s under President Clinton. The three major reasons for our Constitutional Convention were to:

1. Guarantee free trade and travel among the states.
2. Make gold and silver legal tender and abolish paper money.
3. Strictly limit the Executive Branch's authority to pursue war without Congressional approval.

But today:
1. Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, gold and silver are illegal.
2. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate all commerce at the expense of free trade among the states.
3. And now the final nail is placed in the coffin of Congressional responsibility for the war power, delivering this power completely to the President—a sharp and huge blow to the concept of our Republic.

In my view, it appears that the fate of the American Republic is now sealed—unless these recent trends are quickly reversed.

The saddest part of this tragedy is that all these horrible changes are being done in the name of patriotism and protecting freedom. They are justified by good intentions while believing the sacrifice of liberty is required for our safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.

More sadly is the conviction that our enemies are driven to attack us for our freedoms and prosperity, and not because of our deeply flawed foreign policy that has generated justifiable grievances and has inspired the radical violence against us. Without this understanding our endless, unnamed, and undeclared wars will continue and our wonderful experience with liberty will end.

__________________________________________________ _____________________


.

You think ?

Ron Paul rocks. He's got my vote

I'd actually register to vote if he was on the ballot.

Latest gallop poll has Ron Paul in 3rd place in the GOP field. Moves into tie for second without Palin running.

He will be in the primary. I registered republican just to vote for him.

.

Ron Paul is what USA needs right now. Just too bad that USA will go into a depression and he will be blamed for it and not Bush and Obama that did continue to run the country into the bottom. But I'm sure he'll be better than anyone else.

yeah probably, but he is damn right!

Hey there Bonzo. Still have something to teach me from what your Rabbi said or are you just going to run away like a little cowardly bitch?

Sorry. Never heard from you. I'm not on this board every day ya know. LOL!


And why the silly name calling?



.

it's funny how the left wants to regulate us and the right wants to censor us, both wanting to take away from our freedoms and there are still people that will argue they are protecting us!

I don't want that kind of protection

America's greatness is based on the very freedoms they are taking away from us

Ron Paul Melt Down 2012

Some things he wants to do are a bit out there... but... he's got my vote.

Something I always thought was completely against a true democracy. Why in the world do we have to REGISTER as a democrat or a republican to be able to vote. Makes absolutely NO sense.

In most other democracies around the world you can change your party and vote until the last minute. Why not in the US?

You know the biggest problem with these guys that are saying the things that finally need to be said?

They are, like Obama, Politicians.. They say and do what needs to be done to get in office and then just like Obama its a money grab.

Yeah it is stupid. My state you can switch parties the day of the election. Many people switch to the party they are going to vote for then switch back to being independent after they have voted.

You don't ever have to register to a party, just some states only allow those registered to the party vote in the primaries of that party.

Anyone can register and vote in the actual election for whichever side they chose regardless of how they registered.

Also, George Washington believed that if parties were ever formed it would be downfall of the Democracy

To clarify that is just for the primaries.

http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1023437

Don't ask me why the name calling, ask whoever came up with the words that defined what you are doing/being.

Ron Paul will never get in as the voting is fixed, even if he did get in he'd quickly be taken care of with a natural looking heart attack (or similar)

+1 Vote...

Ron Paul = X

America = Y

When X=Y is when Ron Paul becomes president

We're even being lied to about public opinion

That should be "GALLUP" not "GALLOP".

Horses "gallop", "Gallup" does polling.

Jesus.

Good for you though!

That only applies to the primaries. And the reason for it is so democrats don't go screwing up republican primaries and vice versa. And technically the GOP and DNC don't even have to have primatries to nominate a candidate. So no your right to vote is not being infringed upon.

This is the main reason why Ron Paul is a joke. His understanding of economics is juvenile.



.

Objective reality is a joke to you?

They're gonna take your dollar from you, they are gonna wreck everything you got.
You're not part of the elite... You are in the crosshairs

Even if Ron Paul became President, and he won't, it isn't enough to get anything done. He's got Congress to deal with and has to convince them to work with him to effect change. Won't happen. His presidency would be no more effective.

Yep. Especially when it's CONGRESS that actually makes and passes legislation. And even if Congress was controlled by republicans Congress isn't going to pass bills to privitize medicare and social security or cut the milatary budget in half etc etc. All teh President can do is signed legislation or veto it. What is Paul going to do, just veto everything?

Ron Paul is an amazing idealogue. However, his ideas contradict the globalism that benefits the multinational corporations. Therefore he will never develop the institutional following needed to win the party nomination.

Funny how you think congress matters, this president has done everything he wants to do. Except of course the lies he made during the campaign.
Why... he doesn't even need congress to go to war.

Even funnier is how congress will matter again with Ron Paul. He will follow the constitution.

.

If Ron Paul won in a popular election on an honest platform that people believed in, then tried to implement those popular public beliefs only to get clobbered by a lopsided congress, I think you'd see a lot of public backlash on a local level with people's elected officials. They need to play politics to their constituents as well.

ummm. corporate interests make legislation and congress passes it if they A. get paid to do so or B. vote to get votes for what they are getting paid to pass.

Paul has stated he would send all of them home with their last pay check and ask the States to hold new elections and go back to pre-1913 where they are chosen and paid by the State that they are suppose to represent and not the federal government or corporate interests.

They aren't going to cut off their gravy train. Someone will have to do it for them.

Well, a few Presidential Vetoes might not be such a bad idea!

What part of the claim of counterfeiting is objective reality to you? Every country in the world has fiat currency. All modern economies have central banks.

The treasury sells bonds, the government gets the money and spends it. Congress is responsible for runaway spending, not the Federal Reserve.

And the special interests from the bail-outs was the whole world. Otherwise, you'd probably be standing in a soup line right now.

Ron Paul's economics would collapse the economies of the world. That's why he has no chance. Not because he would be upsetting the "powers that be".

Most of the other stuff he said I have sympathy towards, but he really is an extremest with some really stupid ideas.

If you are going to jump on the stupid bandwagon, at least be consistent and address the whole world and not simply the "dollar".



.

Primaries is what means the most - it is a bullshit practice, and a violation of your rights as a citizen. IMHO.

Mainstream economists and the overwhelming majority of higher education in economics considers the Austrian school to be social theorists more so than economists. They are shunned because they don?t provide anything that is considered robust economic analysis. They provide no formulas or mathematical models. It's ideology, not economics.

And clearly there?s no shortage of nut jobs who use the Austrian school to support their economic conspiracy theories. Coincidence? I think not.


Austrian School:

Critics have concluded that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor, which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal mathematical form, but by using mainly verbal logic and what proponents claim are self-evident axioms. Mainstream economists believe that this makes Austrian theories too imprecisely defined to be clearly used to explain or predict real world events. Economist Bryan Caplan noted that, "what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics."

A related criticism is applied to Austrian School leaders; these leaders have advocated a rejection of methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method. In particular, Austrian School leader, Ludwig von Mises, has been described as the mid-20th century's "archetypal 'unscientific' economist." Mises wrote of his economic methodology that "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."

Murray Rothbard was also an adherent of Mises's methodology, and though Rothbard assigned a quasi-empirical description to it, he comments that "it should be obvious that this type of 'empiricism' is so out of step with modern empiricism that I may just as well continue to call it a priori for present purposes". Additionally, the prominent Austrian economist, F. A. Hayek, stated his belief that social science theories can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." Such rejections of empirical evidence in economics by Austrian School leaders have led to the school being dismissed within the mainstream.

First of all the reason the Austrian school doesn't get a lot of attention from the mainstream media and from politicians is because Austrian Economists can clearly explain what causes the Boom and Bust cycle: Government intervention in the economy (and more specifically central banks artificially adjusting the interest rate). This totally opposes the Keynesian view that can be easily used by politicians as an excuses for endless borrowing of funds they use to buy peoples' votes.

On methodology: Yes there is a huge difference in methodology between the Austrian School and the schools of thought that get most of the media attention these days.

The Austrian School uses an axiomatic-deductive method (which btw used to be the most commonly used method in economics until the neo-liberals like Friedman started promoting the empiric-scientific method.)

According to the empiric-scientific method it is impossible to be certain about something. Economists who use this method formulate hypotheses and then they test and retest these hypotheses. Afterwards they can for example state that hypothesis A was not disproved in 10 of their tests and that hypothesis B was disproved in 8 out 10 of their tests.

Austrian economists totally reject this empirical-scientific method for 2 reasons:
- It is possible to be certain about certain things. For example If I state that all objects that are completely blue cannot at the same time be completely red than you know that that statement is correct. Even though it is clearly impossible to test this statement in an empirical-scientific way. Another example: 2 objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.
- While the empirical-scientific method is useful when investigating the natural sciences (physics, chemistry etc) it is impossible to use these techniques when investigating how the economy works. While it is possible to isolate 1 or more chemical elements in a lab and for example test at what temperature they melt or burn or vaporize, it is impossible to place the entire economy in a lab. It is not possible to measure all activities, ideas etc. It is impossible to put people in a lab and monitor their behavior without affecting their behavior.

The Austrian school uses an axiomatic-deductive method. This means they start with an axiom (a statement that is true) and use a known method (Logic) to deduct things from that axiom. So If your axiom is true and if you have not made any logical errors, than whatever you have deducted from that axiom must also be true.

I recommend you take a look at 'praxeology'. The axiom here is that "people act" (It is impossible to disprove that people act because by trying to do so you would be performing an act and contradict yourself) and it is remarkable to see how much economic laws can deducted from that simple axiom.


Critics of the Austrian School often try to take a shortcut and instead of arguing based on content they simply try to dismiss or discredit the Austrian method as 'religion'. Of course by doing so these critics are dismissing logic and reason itself and even other axiomatic-deductive sciences like mathematics.

If the use of an axiomatic-deductive method were mere religion and if it were impossible to be certain about something than a high school maths teach would for example not be able to teach his students about the Pythagorean theorem because than that would be mere religion.

Here is the problem with applying Hayek's Austrian economic theory. Monopoly.

Hayek didn't substantively address capital monopoly and additionally, his endorsement of regulation is a counter-point to his own theory. The fact of the matter is that the very people that endorse his economic theory are against government regulation of the market. Regulation is a critical component of his theory.

Here are some very real facts about the US economy. The wealthy control 87-90% of capital assets. In order for Hayek's theory to work in real world application, demand must be a driver. In this sense he proves Keynes basic point that consumer spending drives a successful economy.

The consumer class only controls 10-15% of the capital assets in the US and based on that fact alone it should be obvious that they (we) don't have any economic power in comparison to the wealthy. I am not saying that it is impossible... however, the odds of success are now much lower than before the onset of corporations and the central banking system. It is why so many businesses fail from lack of capital. It isn't just because they didn't have a good idea... in many cases, it is the result of insurmountable market competition and/or means to get the idea started.

I appreciate your response, but I merely explained why they are shunned.

And I wouldn't put too much stock in an explanation that has no practical application. If they could accurately model, predict and offer adjustments to smooth out boom and busts, they would be taken more seriously.

And Government borrowing, which is extended out the yield curve is subject to pricing (interest rate) by the market, not the FED.

Whether politicians borrow and spend more than is prudent is a political issue.

.

One thing is clear: Obamanomics does not seem to be creating a vibrant economy.

I am afraid that if he won the presidency, some corporate/fed/spook asshole would shoot him.

Tits or GTFO!

Palin 2012!!!!!!

First the airport, then what?

What can Ron Paul do as president? Bring our troops home. For real this time.

I kid, Mr. Paul FTW!






The best at their finest